CBCA 5626

Board: CBCA Agency: General Services Administration Appellant: Godwin Anagu Date: 2017-08-03 Outcome: denied
View full appeal with AI analysis on ProtestIntel →
DENIED: August 3, 2017 CBCA 5626 GODWIN ANAGU, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Godwin Anagu, pro se, Culver City, CA. Mark Ezersky, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, San Francisco, CA, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges GOODMAN, VERGILIO, and LESTER. GOODMAN, Board Judge. This appeal arises from a contract entered into between appellant, Godwin Anagu, and respondent General Services Administration (GSA), when appellant placed the winning bid on a 2009 Ford Escape (vehicle) listed on the GSA Auctions website. After taking delivery of the vehicle, appellant filed a claim seeking to return the vehicle for a full refund in the amount of $9600, or alternatively, a price adjustment of $2758.34 for repair costs. Respondent’s contracting officer issued a decision denying the claim, and appellant appealed. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss, and thereafter the parties filed additional submissions. We treat the motion as a motion for summary relief and deny the appeal. CBCA 5626 2 Findings of Fact The advertisement on the GSA Auctions website specified the auctioneer, Norwalk Auto Auction in Norwalk, California, and provided a contact name and phone number for the auctioneer to coordinate pre-bid inspection of listed items and removal of items by the winning bidders. Exhibit 3 at 1.1 The advertisement stated that the auction was subject to the Fleet Terms and Conditions and the General Sale Terms and Conditions, both of which were binding on bidders. Exhibit 3 at 1 and 7. The relevant GSA Fleet Terms and Conditions of Sale provide: Condition of Property The following replaces Clause No. 2 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Standard Form (SF) 114C: Condition of property is not warranted. Deficiencies, when known, have been indicated in the property descriptions. However, absence of any indicated deficiencies does not mean that none exists. Therefore, the bidder should ascertain the condition of the item through physical inspection. Please also reference the Inspection of Property clause. .... Description Warranty & Refunds The Government warrants to the original purchaser that the property listed in the GSAAuctions.gov website will conform to its written description. Features, characteristics, deficiencies, etc. not addressed in the description are excluded from this warranty. GSA further cautions bidders that GSA’s written description represents GSA’s best effort to describe the item based on the information provided to it by the owning agency. Therefore, gross omissions regarding the functionality of items, failures to cite major missing parts and/or restrictions with regards to usage may occur. The Government does not warrant the merchantability of the property or its purpose. Exhibit 3 at 8-9. The relevant General Sale Terms and Conditions provide: 1. INSPECTION 1 All exhibits are found in the appeal file, unless otherwise noted. CBCA 5626 3 The Bidder is invited, urged, and cautioned to inspect the property prior to submitting a bid. Property will be available for inspection at the places and times specified in the Invitation. Exhibit 3 at 12. In addition to the terms and conditions, several other notifications indicate that the vehicle’s condition was not warranted. Both the vehicle’s auction advertisement and the Sale Contract Purchase Receipt stated “MAY OR MAY NOT NEED REPAIRS.” Exhibit 3 at 1; Exhibit 4 at 1. Further, the Sale Contract Purchase Receipt stated “as-is.” Exhibit 4 at 1. Lastly, an inspection report may indicate whether a vehicle may or may not need repairs. While appellant requested an inspection report at delivery, he did not request a report prior to placing a bid. Exhibit 14 at 6. On August 31, 2016, appellant placed a winning bid in the amount of $9600 for the vehicle listed on GSA Auctions. Exhibit 3 at 1, 5. Appellant did not inspect the vehicle before placing his bid. Exhibit 12 at 6-7. Appellant alleges that “while the bid window was open, I called the number and person provided several times to find out when to inspect the car. The phone rang on end [and] was not picked [up].